Evidence for God from Science

qqMOARpewpew wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

qqMOARpewpew wrote:We're talking about my personal beliefs, the evidence base is it makes sense to me, just like every other person in this world. Its not Truth, its personal truth, for each of us, or rather thats my personal truth.

I have to commend you on your honesty, but I wonder if it is a good idea to go around admitting that you are in favor of torturing children for fun. I mean, seems a bit twisted to me . . . anybody else here have a problem with that?

This personal truth of yours is funny. To me its straight up proof for my beliefs, you feel very differently about this than I do clearly, I could even say your personal truth (and ideas about what that means) is diffrent from my own.

mods, do we allow the promotion of racism here? Really . . . this guy saying that slavery kept blacks in their place is just disgusting on any level . . .

Not sure the point is being received and understood but I get it!

qqMOARpewpew wrote:

ageofknowledge wrote:I know a severely mentally retarded man down the way that babbles all sorts of nonsense and swears it's all true... even though it's not. You've fallen into the error of relativism.

If your truth is your truth and my truth is my truth, how can we be certain about anything? Let us say that your truth happens to be that Einstein was wrong in the theory of relativity and the unified field theories, whereas myself and objective truth in both mathematics and physics confirm that he was right. Does it make any difference whether the truth, is based on empirical observable repeatable facts or just your subjective feelings at the moment you open your mouth? Was Einstein wrong because you might feel at a given moment that he was? Relativism produces no truth and the undeniable law of noncontradiction refutes it.

The Nazis' argument for killing Jews is a position that could not be refuted in a world of relative morality and ethics. But the Christian ethic certainly judges such actions as wrong (even if not everyone that ever claimed to be a Christian adhered to it). Using your logic; however, anyone who feels Hitler was right for murdering six million Jews is displaying exactly as much truth as those that feel he was wrong. To argue that he was wrong, if you are a relativist, is fallacious because your own definition of truth entitles Hitler as much right to his view as you to yours. Would a murderer be "wrong" to murder you because he feels like it? Should we get out of the way and let him? Probably not.

My best friends sister is retarded, as far as i can tell she has a kinder heart than anyone I've talked to on this forum.

Your whole two paragraph thing is just evidence for me that there is an ultimate truth and you and I and bob quency gearge the retard will all never know it, which is all that I said by saying I have my personal truths and I don't claim them to be TRUTH.


"How can we be certain of anything?" In my opinion (Another word for personal truth) we can not be sure of anything, this is why I consider myself agnostic.
Well if lets say you believe in fairies, you say you can feel them when you think really hard about them. Sometimes good things happen and you see signs that point to the fairies causing the good things. I say, I don't believe in fairies. You say, YOU CAN'T PROVE THEY DONT EXIST. And then I walk away. (See how dumb these metaphorical little stories are?)

What is a world of relative morallity and ethics? I think you have absolute truth on the brain because this is the most ironic thing i have seen all night.


" your own definition of truth entitles Hitler as much right to his view as you to yours" No. It doesn't. It means Hitler thought he was right, and I think I'm right, and you think you're right and no one is right.

She may have the best heart of anyone here (including yourself [a point you conveniently overlooked]), Corrie Ten Boom once said who is to say that God doesn't love those special ones (developmentally disabeled) the most. She said it to a Nazi on patrol in Holland during WWII who was ridiculing her for caring for them. A Nazi who honestly believed in and whose "personal truth" was the philosophy of National Socialism. There is little objective proof that Hitler did not believe in National Socialism and absolutely none to refute the fact that many of his followers certainly did. Watch an interview or two and hear them tell of their unflagging belief in national socialism in their own words.

But you cannot use that as a diversion to mask the many errors you've asserted nor rebut anything I've said. A kind heart doesn't make nonsensical assertions any more true. If you're honestly changing your position now to accept objective truth, I congratulate you. That is a big step in the right direction. What you still need to understand is that if your "personal truth" is in direct opposition conflicting with objective truth, then you are in error: not objective truth. If you insist that oxgen is lead because you feel it is but you're oxgen has exactly the elemental structure of lead then you have made an error. Lead is lead because its chemical structure is that of lead and not oxgyen (regardless of what label it is assigned). See how this works?

Having acknowledged ultimate (e.g. objective) truth actually exists (though you are not learned enough yet to understand really why that is though I given you an example to get you started), then the next logical issue would be what you're now grappling with: namely, how do we discern the truth?

I'm glad you asked. You'll be happy to know that it doesn't have anything to do with fairies or the infantile fairy argument you made. I will explain the matter to you but right now I have to drive my mother to the doctor's office. An act of kindness if you will.

zoegirl wrote:So the personal truth of the Nazis was truth for them....great.

Sure, but you're way too hung up on the word truth in there. Personal truth means the opposite of absolute truth. It means the truth can be wrong.

Jac3510 wrote:

qqMOARpewpew wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

qqMOARpewpew wrote:We're talking about my personal beliefs, the evidence base is it makes sense to me, just like every other person in this world. Its not Truth, its personal truth, for each of us, or rather thats my personal truth.

I have to commend you on your honesty, but I wonder if it is a good idea to go around admitting that you are in favor of torturing children for fun. I mean, seems a bit twisted to me . . . anybody else here have a problem with that?

This personal truth of yours is funny. To me its straight up proof for my beliefs, you feel very differently about this than I do clearly, I could even say your personal truth (and ideas about what that means) is diffrent from my own.

mods, do we allow the promotion of racism here? Really . . . this guy saying that slavery kept blacks in their place is just disgusting on any level . . .

lulz.

ageofknowledge wrote:

qqMOARpewpew wrote:

ageofknowledge wrote:I know a severely mentally retarded man down the way that babbles all sorts of nonsense and swears it's all true... even though it's not. You've fallen into the error of relativism.

If your truth is your truth and my truth is my truth, how can we be certain about anything? Let us say that your truth happens to be that Einstein was wrong in the theory of relativity and the unified field theories, whereas myself and objective truth in both mathematics and physics confirm that he was right. Does it make any difference whether the truth, is based on empirical observable repeatable facts or just your subjective feelings at the moment you open your mouth? Was Einstein wrong because you might feel at a given moment that he was? Relativism produces no truth and the undeniable law of noncontradiction refutes it.

The Nazis' argument for killing Jews is a position that could not be refuted in a world of relative morality and ethics. But the Christian ethic certainly judges such actions as wrong (even if not everyone that ever claimed to be a Christian adhered to it). Using your logic; however, anyone who feels Hitler was right for murdering six million Jews is displaying exactly as much truth as those that feel he was wrong. To argue that he was wrong, if you are a relativist, is fallacious because your own definition of truth entitles Hitler as much right to his view as you to yours. Would a murderer be "wrong" to murder you because he feels like it? Should we get out of the way and let him? Probably not.

My best friends sister is retarded, as far as i can tell she has a kinder heart than anyone I've talked to on this forum.

Your whole two paragraph thing is just evidence for me that there is an ultimate truth and you and I and bob quency gearge the retard will all never know it, which is all that I said by saying I have my personal truths and I don't claim them to be TRUTH.


"How can we be certain of anything?" In my opinion (Another word for personal truth) we can not be sure of anything, this is why I consider myself agnostic.
Well if lets say you believe in fairies, you say you can feel them when you think really hard about them. Sometimes good things happen and you see signs that point to the fairies causing the good things. I say, I don't believe in fairies. You say, YOU CAN'T PROVE THEY DONT EXIST. And then I walk away. (See how dumb these metaphorical little stories are?)

What is a world of relative morallity and ethics? I think you have absolute truth on the brain because this is the most ironic thing i have seen all night.


" your own definition of truth entitles Hitler as much right to his view as you to yours" No. It doesn't. It means Hitler thought he was right, and I think I'm right, and you think you're right and no one is right.

She may have the best heart of anyone here (including yourself [a point you conveniently overlooked]), Corrie Ten Boom once said who is to say that God doesn't love those special ones (developmentally disabeled) the most. She said it to a Nazi on patrol in Holland during WWII who was ridiculing her for caring for them. A Nazi who honestly believed in and whose "personal truth" was the philosophy of National Socialism. There is little objective proof that Hitler did not believe in National Socialism and absolutely none to refute the fact that many of his followers certainly did. Watch an interview or two and hear them tell of their unflagging belief in national socialism in their own words.

But you cannot use that as a diversion to mask the many errors you've asserted nor rebut anything I've said. A kind heart doesn't make nonsensical assertions any more true. If you're honestly changing your position now to accept objective truth, I congratulate you. That is a big step in the right direction. What you still need to understand is that if your "personal truth" is in direct opposition conflicting with objective truth, then you are in error: not objective truth. If you insist that oxgen is lead because you feel it is but you're oxgen has exactly the elemental structure of lead then you have made an error. Lead is lead because its chemical structure is that of lead and not oxgyen (regardless of what label it is assigned). See how this works?

Having acknowledged ultimate (e.g. objective) truth actually exists (though you are not learned enough yet to understand really why that is though I given you an example to get you started), then the next logical issue would be what you're now grappling with: namely, how do we discern the truth?

I'm glad you asked. You'll be happy to know that it doesn't have anything to do with fairies or the infantile fairy argument you made. I will explain the matter to you but right now I have to drive my mother to the doctor's office. An act of kindness if you will.

(She definitely has a kinder heart than I do)

I'm gonna ignore your post because you ignored mine, I'm skipping over it, I hope you worked hard on it good job.

Do you have opinions? a belief based on one's own ideas and thinking. For example It is my opinion that the whole universe is very small in the scheme of things, and that all energy is a very basic form of life.

Do you sir honestly believe you know The Ultimate Truth? You really think you know things the way your god would know them? You don't think you're biased? I understand you needed to feel like you know he ultimate truth. (I feel like i know it all the time) But that is the ego, if the individual didn't believe it was right, it would be a bit hard to function.

qqMOARpewpew wrote:
I don't know, or claim to know, or care what the basis of meaning is. I dont think about, havent before, don't plan to. That doesnt mean you should go and assume that. Don't make a donkey out of you and me.

Cool, fo shizzle, and what not.

I mean the round thing we live upon. The natural world, which happens to have a little social gathering of people on it currently. But i also meant our bodies, they seem hostile to the individual at times.

Do you disagree with your lord and savior that we should love our enemies? Sorry I posted it because the picture is awesome, and I was curious as to how yall might respond. Good job btw.

Not seeing the logical connection? Duh, its a heart-connection not a logical one.

I am saying good and bad are illusions created by the human mind in order to understand the world.

Why would they listen to you, or even Carl Sagan? There's no reason to, if it's all up to each individual. And would you care if they do or not?
I don't expect them to listen to me and instantly get all lovey dovey for each other. I wasn't that suprised when instead of being like "Yeah humanity in its current state sucks and we should try to do something about it" started nit picking the logic of it. I would care if they listened to me, I'm used to being an average citizen though.

Tell me when I am not being clear and I will always try to clarify.

qq, you are not understanding the points trying to be made, and then being disrespectful, hostile, and sarcastic in return. If you can't try and think about what is being said and asked, and just want to take it as personal attacks, you will be warned or banned. I haven't read a lot yet this morning, but from what little I did see, I wouldn't be surprised if you got a warning already.

cslewislover wrote:

qqMOARpewpew wrote:
I don't know, or claim to know, or care what the basis of meaning is. I dont think about, havent before, don't plan to. That doesnt mean you should go and assume that. Don't make a donkey out of you and me.

Cool, fo shizzle, and what not.

I mean the round thing we live upon. The natural world, which happens to have a little social gathering of people on it currently. But i also meant our bodies, they seem hostile to the individual at times.

Do you disagree with your lord and savior that we should love our enemies? Sorry I posted it because the picture is awesome, and I was curious as to how yall might respond. Good job btw.

Not seeing the logical connection? Duh, its a heart-connection not a logical one.

I am saying good and bad are illusions created by the human mind in order to understand the world.

Why would they listen to you, or even Carl Sagan? There's no reason to, if it's all up to each individual. And would you care if they do or not?
I don't expect them to listen to me and instantly get all lovey dovey for each other. I wasn't that suprised when instead of being like "Yeah humanity in its current state sucks and we should try to do something about it" started nit picking the logic of it. I would care if they listened to me, I'm used to being an average citizen though.

Tell me when I am not being clear and I will always try to clarify.

qq, you are not understanding the points trying to be made, and then being disrespectful, hostile, and sarcastic in return. If you can't try and think about what is being said and asked, and just want to take it as personal attacks, you will be warned or banned. I haven't read a lot yet this morning, but from what little I did see, I wouldn't be surprised if you got a warning already.

Two things. It was 3 something in the morning when I posted that, so yes i was abit out of it. Two, in the post this one was responding to, you did not understand the points trying to be made, there was some tiny level of disrespect, and sarcasm. I'm pretty sure you just took my jokes wrong, something that happens all the time on the internets.

qqMOARpewpew wrote:

ageofknowledge wrote:

qqMOARpewpew wrote:

ageofknowledge wrote:I know a severely mentally retarded man down the way that babbles all sorts of nonsense and swears it's all true... even though it's not. You've fallen into the error of relativism.

If your truth is your truth and my truth is my truth, how can we be certain about anything? Let us say that your truth happens to be that Einstein was wrong in the theory of relativity and the unified field theories, whereas myself and objective truth in both mathematics and physics confirm that he was right. Does it make any difference whether the truth, is based on empirical observable repeatable facts or just your subjective feelings at the moment you open your mouth? Was Einstein wrong because you might feel at a given moment that he was? Relativism produces no truth and the undeniable law of noncontradiction refutes it.

The Nazis' argument for killing Jews is a position that could not be refuted in a world of relative morality and ethics. But the Christian ethic certainly judges such actions as wrong (even if not everyone that ever claimed to be a Christian adhered to it). Using your logic; however, anyone who feels Hitler was right for murdering six million Jews is displaying exactly as much truth as those that feel he was wrong. To argue that he was wrong, if you are a relativist, is fallacious because your own definition of truth entitles Hitler as much right to his view as you to yours. Would a murderer be "wrong" to murder you because he feels like it? Should we get out of the way and let him? Probably not.

My best friends sister is retarded, as far as i can tell she has a kinder heart than anyone I've talked to on this forum.

Your whole two paragraph thing is just evidence for me that there is an ultimate truth and you and I and bob quency gearge the retard will all never know it, which is all that I said by saying I have my personal truths and I don't claim them to be TRUTH.


"How can we be certain of anything?" In my opinion (Another word for personal truth) we can not be sure of anything, this is why I consider myself agnostic.
Well if lets say you believe in fairies, you say you can feel them when you think really hard about them. Sometimes good things happen and you see signs that point to the fairies causing the good things. I say, I don't believe in fairies. You say, YOU CAN'T PROVE THEY DONT EXIST. And then I walk away. (See how dumb these metaphorical little stories are?)

What is a world of relative morallity and ethics? I think you have absolute truth on the brain because this is the most ironic thing i have seen all night.


" your own definition of truth entitles Hitler as much right to his view as you to yours" No. It doesn't. It means Hitler thought he was right, and I think I'm right, and you think you're right and no one is right.

She may have the best heart of anyone here (including yourself [a point you conveniently overlooked]), Corrie Ten Boom once said who is to say that God doesn't love those special ones (developmentally disabeled) the most. She said it to a Nazi on patrol in Holland during WWII who was ridiculing her for caring for them. A Nazi who honestly believed in and whose "personal truth" was the philosophy of National Socialism. There is little objective proof that Hitler did not believe in National Socialism and absolutely none to refute the fact that many of his followers certainly did. Watch an interview or two and hear them tell of their unflagging belief in national socialism in their own words.

But you cannot use that as a diversion to mask the many errors you've asserted nor rebut anything I've said. A kind heart doesn't make nonsensical assertions any more true. If you're honestly changing your position now to accept objective truth, I congratulate you. That is a big step in the right direction. What you still need to understand is that if your "personal truth" is in direct opposition conflicting with objective truth, then you are in error: not objective truth. If you insist that oxgen is lead because you feel it is but you're oxgen has exactly the elemental structure of lead then you have made an error. Lead is lead because its chemical structure is that of lead and not oxgyen (regardless of what label it is assigned). See how this works?

Having acknowledged ultimate (e.g. objective) truth actually exists (though you are not learned enough yet to understand really why that is though I given you an example to get you started), then the next logical issue would be what you're now grappling with: namely, how do we discern the truth?

I'm glad you asked. You'll be happy to know that it doesn't have anything to do with fairies or the infantile fairy argument you made. I will explain the matter to you but right now I have to drive my mother to the doctor's office. An act of kindness if you will.

(She definitely has a kinder heart than I do)

I'm gonna ignore your post because you ignored mine, I'm skipping over it, I hope you worked hard on it good job.

Do you have opinions? a belief based on one's own ideas and thinking. For example It is my opinion that the whole universe is very small in the scheme of things, and that all energy is a very basic form of life.

Do you sir honestly believe you know The Ultimate Truth? You really think you know things the way your god would know them? You don't think you're biased? I understand you needed to feel like you know he ultimate truth. (I feel like i know it all the time) But that is the ego, if the individual didn't believe it was right, it would be a bit hard to function.

I didn't ignore your post. I replied to it. It appears you cannot do likewise so choose to ignore it. The result is you willfully remain in ignorance. A state you seem to find comfortable.

I do not put my opinions on the same level or above objective truth as you, in your ignorance, choose to do because I know better. My beliefs begin as opinions, progress to hypothesis, and are either confirmed or falsified by objective evidence.

Your's appear to be based on nothing but feelings.

ageofknowledge wrote:

qqMOARpewpew wrote:

ageofknowledge wrote:

qqMOARpewpew wrote:

ageofknowledge wrote:I know a severely mentally retarded man down the way that babbles all sorts of nonsense and swears it's all true... even though it's not. You've fallen into the error of relativism.

If your truth is your truth and my truth is my truth, how can we be certain about anything? Let us say that your truth happens to be that Einstein was wrong in the theory of relativity and the unified field theories, whereas myself and objective truth in both mathematics and physics confirm that he was right. Does it make any difference whether the truth, is based on empirical observable repeatable facts or just your subjective feelings at the moment you open your mouth? Was Einstein wrong because you might feel at a given moment that he was? Relativism produces no truth and the undeniable law of noncontradiction refutes it.

The Nazis' argument for killing Jews is a position that could not be refuted in a world of relative morality and ethics. But the Christian ethic certainly judges such actions as wrong (even if not everyone that ever claimed to be a Christian adhered to it). Using your logic; however, anyone who feels Hitler was right for murdering six million Jews is displaying exactly as much truth as those that feel he was wrong. To argue that he was wrong, if you are a relativist, is fallacious because your own definition of truth entitles Hitler as much right to his view as you to yours. Would a murderer be "wrong" to murder you because he feels like it? Should we get out of the way and let him? Probably not.

My best friends sister is retarded, as far as i can tell she has a kinder heart than anyone I've talked to on this forum.

Your whole two paragraph thing is just evidence for me that there is an ultimate truth and you and I and bob quency gearge the retard will all never know it, which is all that I said by saying I have my personal truths and I don't claim them to be TRUTH.


"How can we be certain of anything?" In my opinion (Another word for personal truth) we can not be sure of anything, this is why I consider myself agnostic.
Well if lets say you believe in fairies, you say you can feel them when you think really hard about them. Sometimes good things happen and you see signs that point to the fairies causing the good things. I say, I don't believe in fairies. You say, YOU CAN'T PROVE THEY DONT EXIST. And then I walk away. (See how dumb these metaphorical little stories are?)

What is a world of relative morallity and ethics? I think you have absolute truth on the brain because this is the most ironic thing i have seen all night.


" your own definition of truth entitles Hitler as much right to his view as you to yours" No. It doesn't. It means Hitler thought he was right, and I think I'm right, and you think you're right and no one is right.

She may have the best heart of anyone here (including yourself [a point you conveniently overlooked]), Corrie Ten Boom once said who is to say that God doesn't love those special ones (developmentally disabeled) the most. She said it to a Nazi on patrol in Holland during WWII who was ridiculing her for caring for them. A Nazi who honestly believed in and whose "personal truth" was the philosophy of National Socialism. There is little objective proof that Hitler did not believe in National Socialism and absolutely none to refute the fact that many of his followers certainly did. Watch an interview or two and hear them tell of their unflagging belief in national socialism in their own words.

But you cannot use that as a diversion to mask the many errors you've asserted nor rebut anything I've said. A kind heart doesn't make nonsensical assertions any more true. If you're honestly changing your position now to accept objective truth, I congratulate you. That is a big step in the right direction. What you still need to understand is that if your "personal truth" is in direct opposition conflicting with objective truth, then you are in error: not objective truth. If you insist that oxgen is lead because you feel it is but you're oxgen has exactly the elemental structure of lead then you have made an error. Lead is lead because its chemical structure is that of lead and not oxgyen (regardless of what label it is assigned). See how this works?

Having acknowledged ultimate (e.g. objective) truth actually exists (though you are not learned enough yet to understand really why that is though I given you an example to get you started), then the next logical issue would be what you're now grappling with: namely, how do we discern the truth?

I'm glad you asked. You'll be happy to know that it doesn't have anything to do with fairies or the infantile fairy argument you made. I will explain the matter to you but right now I have to drive my mother to the doctor's office. An act of kindness if you will.

(She definitely has a kinder heart than I do)

I'm gonna ignore your post because you ignored mine, I'm skipping over it, I hope you worked hard on it good job.

Do you have opinions? a belief based on one's own ideas and thinking. For example It is my opinion that the whole universe is very small in the scheme of things, and that all energy is a very basic form of life.

Do you sir honestly believe you know The Ultimate Truth? You really think you know things the way your god would know them? You don't think you're biased? I understand you needed to feel like you know he ultimate truth. (I feel like i know it all the time) But that is the ego, if the individual didn't believe it was right, it would be a bit hard to function.

I didn't ignore your post. I replied to it. It appears you cannot do likewise so choose to ignore it. The result is you willfully remain in ignorance. A state you seem to find comfortable.

I do not put my opinions on the same level or above objective truth as you, in your ignorance, choose to do because I know better. My beliefs begin as opinions, progress to hypothesis, and are either confirmed or falsified by objective evidence.

Your's appear to be based on nothing but feelings.

"I have my personal truths and I don't claim them to be TRUTH." This is what I said, and your mind somehow twists that into you thinking I believe my opinions are above objective truth. I simply believe no one knows the Objective truth.

This universe could be virtual reality that our astral bodies made to explore a different realm, or this entire world could be a product of your mind, or some super beings mind, this whole thing could be a dream or a thought. I simply don't claim to know the truth, and you say I claim to know above the truth.

qqMOARpewpew wrote:"I have my personal truths and I don't claim them to be TRUTH." This is what I said, and your mind somehow twists that into you thinking I believe my opinions are above objective truth. I simply believe no one knows the Objective truth.

This universe could be virtual reality that our astral bodies made to explore a different realm, or this entire world could be a product of your mind, or some super beings mind, this whole thing could be a dream or a thought. I simply don't claim to know the truth, and you say I claim to know above the truth.

You do know objective truth...

Denying it does make it relative...
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

qqMOARpewpew wrote:"I have my personal truths and I don't claim them to be TRUTH." This is what I said, and your mind somehow twists that into you thinking I believe my opinions are above objective truth. I simply believe no one knows the Objective truth.

This universe could be virtual reality that our astral bodies made to explore a different realm, or this entire world could be a product of your mind, or some super beings mind, this whole thing could be a dream or a thought. I simply don't claim to know the truth, and you say I claim to know above the truth.

You do know objective truth...

Denying it does make it relative...
-
-
-

Oh yes, every non-christian knows christianity is truth but denies it in order to guiltlessly sin, is that what you're saying?

qqMOARpewpew wrote:I simply believe no one knows the Objective truth.

Ok, I apologize then for misunderstanding this. We can debate why Solipsism fails as an accurate method of discerning objective truth and eventually ends up refuting itself but first allow me to ask you a question friend. Do you believe that humans are capable of clearly discerning any objective truth whatsoever?

ageofknowledge wrote:

qqMOARpewpew wrote:I simply believe no one knows the Objective truth.

Ok, I apologize then for misunderstanding this. Let me ask you a question friend. Do you believe that a person can know any objective truth? Or to ask the question differently: Do you believe that humans are capable of clearly discerning any objective truth whatsoever?

Its fine, its quite an abstract concept to be talking about on the internet, its hard for the point to get across

Someone could believe apart of the objective truth, but i don't think there would be any way for them to be 100% that the what they believed was truth. (even though all of feel like we know the truth)

I don't think it is possible for humans to know everything about the objective truth, i don't think we have the capacity.

I don't think anyone alive or dead knew the truth.

qqMOARpewpew wrote:lulz.

Ah, if only I had not stepped down as a moderator. I would have banned you immediately for that off color comment. I hardly think that Byblos' family has anything to do with this, and I'm sure she is HIGHLY offended (and rightfully so!), but in any case, I certainly appreciate your agreement--however begrudgingly, that truth is always absolute. I'm not sure how that fits in with your new-found Christianity, but I guess that is between you and God.

edit:

I simply believe no one knows the Objective truth.

For the record, how can you objectively say that no one knows objective truth? Self-contradictions ftw . . .